From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54]:35213 "EHLO mail-lf0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S942880AbdDTKxu (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 06:53:50 -0400 Received: by mail-lf0-f54.google.com with SMTP id 75so26649918lfs.2 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 03:53:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20170331130941.5250-1-riku.voipio@linaro.org> <20170331130941.5250-4-riku.voipio@linaro.org> From: Riku Voipio Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:53:48 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] builddeb: add make fastdeb-pkg target Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Masahiro Yamada Cc: Linux Kbuild mailing list , Michal Marek , debian-kernel , Andrew Donnellan Hi, Thanks for taking time to review. On 18 April 2017 at 17:31, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Before expanding this even more, > please help me understand this script. > > Commit 3716001b implemented source package build > at the end of the builddeb script. > However, the binary packages are still built in its own way. > (So, debian/rules is not used in general workflows, > so we need to test it explicitly somehow.) Historic reasons.. since the builddeb already existed, the easiest way to implement debian/rules was to make a skeleton debian/rules that calls builddeb indrectly. > Why do not we create a source package first, > then build binary packages from it? I wouldn't do a source package per se, but we could create a debian/ directory tree and the call dpkg-buildpackage. This would be a more substantial overhaul that might break some expected behavior of deb-pkg targets. If people think its worth, I can give it a shot. > rpm-pkg does that way. > (generate a spec-file, then run rpmbuild) speaking of the mkspec script, it would be nice to refactor it to here documents over endless lines of echo. Riku